Hurricane Otis' Wind Speed Increased by 115 mph in 24 Hours. That's Normal... Right?

[Grumblenuts]

OK, and? You are acting like this is impossible if not for humans, and that is outright silly.

Until not all that long ago, we did not even know tropical storms were coming until they hit. That gives us an amazingly narrow history of hard scientific evidence to either support or deny your claim if it is normal or not.

This is the kind of thing that multiple people have pointed out to you, yet you refuse to acknowledge that simple fact. And now I guess because you are the OP, that gives you the right to post anything you want?

And I never claimed I am the smartest one. However, I am quoting and sourcing from well recognized geological facts. Do you deny any of the things I have posted? That the planet goes through this exact same pattern every interglacial? That we are not going to lose most of Florida before it is over?

Once again, simply more "baffle with bullcrap" response. And funny, you almost never discuss the actual issues I bring up in response. Simply attack me, attack anything you think I believe, and ignore the actual facts I bring up.

 

[ding]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Welcome to the new normal.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/weather/hurricane-otis-rapid-intensification-climate/index.html

It’s called weather

 

[Crick]

It’s called weather

No. An increase in the tendency and severity of rapid storm intensification is a climatic change Speedo.

 

[ding]

No. An increase in the tendency and severity of rapid storm intensification is a climatic change Speedo.

No, it's not. It's cannon fodder for a flawed theory and computer model.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No. An increase in the tendency and severity of rapid storm intensification is a climatic change Speedo.

Derrr, derrr, derrr… I thought we were supposed to have a Cat 5 make landfall every week by now….but instead you’re reduced to that?!

 

[Foxfyre]

So you think that's normal?

It is uncommon but most likely not abnormal. Patricia in 2015 increased wind speed even faster than Otis. We don't have any way to know how many other hurricanes that don't threaten any populated land areas or hurricanes before we had technology to track these storms progressed so it may or may not be 'normal.'

 

[Grumblenuts]

View attachment 849474

I posted 3 images. You posted 1. My refutation of the Central Point being 3 times as explicit as your lame attempt, ass hat.

 

[ding]

I posted 3 images. You posted 1. My refutation of the Central Point being 3 times as explicit as your lame attempt, ass hat.

Only in your mind. You've offered less than nothing which is really hard to do.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Wow. Now that's saying something

 

[Crick]

Wow. Now that's saying something

I was a little surprised how that came out. I did a Google search and attempted to copy and paste two of the resulting pages in here. I suspect I missed a tag somewhere but it was getting late and I was too tired to try to fix it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, this part {your work extracted from the above} was a bit difficult to parse, it being in HTML code format and all, but well worth the read so I'll try reposting it here in something more normal.

Crick said:

And now I guess because you are the OP, that gives you the right to post anything you want?

You seem to know two and only two modalities: the lord of all sees and the good-hearted victim. Where do you get this stuff? If you're not familiar with the USMB rules, then just read them. They are neither lengthy nor complex.

Do you object to something I have posted? If so, what?

And I never claimed I am the smartest one.

But you blithely rattle off number after number after number on this topic and that without a hint of supporting documentation. And when someone looks it up, they often find that, in fact, you were wrong. Radiation was released from Fukushima and Three Mile Island. The LIA and the RWP were regional. Fusion power has recently made significant progress. Atmospheric physicists are familiar with rapid storm intensification. And you aren't the only person that's ever joined the military and seen the world.

However, I am quoting and sourcing from well recognized geological facts.

If you were quoting and sourcing, your posts would contain active hyperlinks. The only ones I've seen led to Wikipedia articles which both refuted the claims you'd intended them to support.

Do you deny any of the things I have posted?

I have denied several things you've posted and shown links to reputable sources supporting my positions.

That the planet goes through this exact same pattern every interglacial?

How exact the pattern might be repeated could be up for debate, but certainly the Earth has been going through glacial/interglacial cycles for the last 3 million years. I have never suggested otherwise. And we were on the downhill side of our current interglacial. Temperatures had been declining for 5,000 years before Watt's steam engine pulled up the blanket. The warming observed since the Industrial Revolution is not part of the natural glacial/interglacial cycle. That warming is anthropogenic and due primarily to the greenhouse effect acting on the gigatonnes of CO2 humans have added by burning fossil fuels. The point is indistinguishable from irrefutability.

That we are not going to lose most of Florida before it is over?

It is very, very likely that we will lose significant portions of Florida - and other low lying portions of the world's coasts - to sea level rise over the next two to three centuries. If we somehow stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, the oceans would rise for at least another century. And, of course, we aren't going to stop it for decades, are we.

Once again, simply more "baffle with bullcrap" response.

I've looked through the post to which you were responding but have elected not to include here for reference. I see nothing that falls under that rubrik. I see a question or two I put to you at that point that you have failed to answer. Let's see:

So I am wondering what qualifications you were relying on when you said that a study published in Nature Geoscience, conducted and written by 8 heavily published and cited PhDs and post grads a "joke" and 100% wrong" when you, as far as we can tell, were speaking off the top of your head; linking no references or sources whatsoever and you tell us besides that you aren't even actually a geologist.

I would love to discuss some facts. What is the evidence and reasoning behind the opinions you've expressed re the OP's article?

Any chance you might explain why you thought the OP's linked article was a joke? Any chance you might link to a source supporting your claims?

And funny, you almost never discuss the actual issues I bring up in response. Simply attack me, attack anything you think I believe, and ignore the actual facts I bring up.

I have discussed the regionality of the MWP/LIA/RWP/DACP/LALIA with you. I have discussed radiation from Fukushima with you. I have discussed CO2 emissions vs deforestation with you. I have discussed the "new ice age" with you. And I have tried to discuss with you the value of vetting your claims and providing links to reputable sources but it doesn't look to have gone very far.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Welcome to the new normal.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/weather/hurricane-otis-rapid-intensification-climate/index.html

/---/ Well, if folks in Acapulco paid more in taxes, they could slow down the hurricane winds. Settled science.

 

[Blues Man]

Welcome to the new normal.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/weather/hurricane-otis-rapid-intensification-climate/index.html

It's an anomaly

Those hap[pen occasionally

 

[Crick]

/---/ Well, if folks in Acapulco paid more in taxes, they could slow down the hurricane winds. Settled science.
View attachment 849753

If people had listened to the scientists 20 or 30 years ago, Acapulco might still be standing and 18 people now dead might be sitting at home having dinner with their families.

 

[Crick]

There, for all that word salad, that is the part that answers the question.

So your point was what there, exactly? Other than confirming that there have been no deaths?

When asked if radiation was released at Three Mile Island or Fukushima, you said, "Oh, that is an easy question to answer. None, zero, zilch, nada.". In fact, radiation was released at both locations. That's not word salad. It's the correction of your demonstrably false statement.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If people had listened to the scientists 20 or 30 years ago, Acapulco might still be standing and 18 people now dead might be sitting at home having dinner with their families.

27 and counting..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Will the next hurricane increase by 200mph in 4 hours?

Welcome to the new normal.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/weather/hurricane-otis-rapid-intensification-climate/index.html

Will the next hurricane increase by 200mph in 4 hours?

ZOMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

What do the models say???????

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If people had listened to the scientists 20 or 30 years ago, Acapulco might still be standing and 18 people now dead might be sitting at home having dinner with their families.

Q. How much must we lower CO2 to prevent the climate from every changing?

A. $78,000,000,000,000, but only from USA. China gets a free pass

 

[Grumblenuts]

weather

noun

1. the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
   "if the weather's good we can go for a walk"

climate

noun

1. the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
   "our cold, wet climate"

climate change

a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional and global climates. These changes have a broad range of observed effects that are synonymous with the term.

Changes observed in Earth’s climate since the mid-20th century are driven by human activities, particularly fossil fuel burning, which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere, raising Earth’s average surface temperature.

climate change denial

the pseudoscientific dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.


Some reasons for climate change denial include:

• The realization that an individual's actions contribute to climate change can threaten their self-interest and compromise their psychological integrity.
• Political partisanship or ideologies.
• The ability to strategically adapt to their political environment.

Studies of climate change perceptions in Australia, the UK, and America show that only very small numbers of people actually deny that climate change is happening. The figures range from between 5 to 8% of the population.